Gary E. Miller writes: > There is nothing in C++, as defined by Stroustrup, that you can not do > in C.
You know, I've actually used Cfront and read all of Stroustrups books, so please spare me that lecture. There also is nothing in higher programming languages that you cannot do in assembler. All higher-level languages are there to express the concepts and algorithms more clearly and succinctly than that. If you subscribe to the hypothesis of a constant density of bugs in newly written software, then less LOC mean less bugs. It's quite a bit more complicated than that, but reducing LOC has never hurt in my experience (mostly with numerical code, YMMV). There is such a thing as code that gets too cryptic for it's own good, but that seems to come mainly from using the wrong abstraction level or getting too enamored with some language feature. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
